Naked pictures of your ex? Post them online and you could be charged with a crime under California's new "Revenge Porn" statute. Although it actually went into effect on October 1st, 2013, SB 255 amended Penal Code Section 647, by adding the following paragraph:

"Any person who photographs or records by any means the image of the intimate body part ... of another identifiable person, ... where the parties agree or understand that the image shall remain private, and the person subsequently distributes the image taken, with the intent to cause serious emotional distress, and the depicted person suffers serious emotional distress."

The statute further defines that "intimate body part" includes any portion of genitals, and in the case of a female, the breasts below the top of the arreola, if it is either uncovered or visible "through less than fully opaque clothing."

A first violation is punishable by up to 6 months jail or a fine up to $1,000, or by both. A second or subsequent violation, or any violation against a minor, is punishable by up to 1 year jail, or by a fine up to $2,000, or both.

"Revenge" or "Humiliation" Porn has been prevalent in the news lately. To read more see:

On February 1st, 2013, NPR published a fascinating article about how prison, rather than reform, may be responsible for teaching some to become better criminals.

If prison reformed criminals, illegal earnings once people were released ought to have gone down. But if prison was a "finishing school" for criminals, illegal earnings after serving time should have increased."Spending time in prison leads to increased criminal earnings," Hutcherson says. "On average, a person can make roughly $11,000 more [illegally] from spending time in prison versus a person who does not spend time in prison."As to the process by which this happens, he says, "You come in [to prison]. You're 16, 17, 18 years old. You're looking around and you're thinking, 'Listen, I can learn from these seasoned veterans.' And that's exactly what you do. ... Basically, you are spending a lot of time around other criminals, seasoned veterans who know the lay of the land, and they can teach you the mechanisms — ways to get away with crime."

The study, "Crime Pays: The Connection Between Time in Prison and Future Criminal Earnings" looks at how spending significant time incarcerated impacts the ability to obtain legitimate income and the role of prison on future opportunities and earning potential. A discussion with the author is transcribed and posted on the NPR website, available here.

Mr Norris was 65 years old at the time, and a collector of orchids. He eventually discovered that he was suspected of smuggling the flowers into America, an offence under the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species. This came as a shock. He did indeed import flowers and sell them to other orchid-lovers. And it was true that his suppliers in Latin America were sometimes sloppy about their paperwork. In a shipment of many similar-looking plants, it was rare for each permit to match each orchid precisely.

In March 2004, five months after the raid, Mr Norris was indicted, handcuffed and thrown into a cell with a suspected murderer and two suspected drug-dealers. When told why he was there, “they thought it hilarious.” One asked: “What do you do with these things? Smoke ’em?”

Prosecutors described Mr Norris as the “kingpin” of an international smuggling ring. He was dumbfounded: his annual profits were never more than about $20,000. When prosecutors suggested that he should inform on other smugglers in return for a lighter sentence, he refused, insisting he knew nothing beyond hearsay.

He pleaded innocent. But an undercover federal agent had ordered some orchids from him, a few of which arrived without the correct papers. For this, he was charged with making a false statement to a government official, a federal crime punishable by up to five years in prison. Since he had communicated with his suppliers, he was charged with conspiracy, which also carries a potential five-year term.

As his legal bills exploded, Mr Norris reluctantly changed his plea to guilty, though he still protests his innocence. He was sentenced to 17 months in prison.

In recent Change.org articles, writers reported on two cases where students were arrested for inarguably minor issues:

When a 15-year-old Wisconsin student was handcuffed and hauled to jail after an assistant school principal accused him of stealing $2.60 cafeteria chicken nuggets, outrage erupted. Local media outlets had a field day with the ludicrous story (charges against the teen were eventually dropped).

But if the case of the "Great Chicken Nugget Heist" had particularly absurd parameters, unfortunately, such events are far more common than most of us might like to think. We've written here before about the 12-year-old girl that New York cops handcuffed in her Queens classroom for doodling on a desk. ("I love my friends Abby and Faith," the perpetrator had written before drawing a smiley face, in green Magic Marker.) And the list goes on. Right now, there are more cops patrolling the halls of New York City schools than there are monitoring Washington, DC. Or Las Vegas. Or any other number of large cities across the nation."

The Economist article notes the movement towards reduction and non-custodial penalties for non-violent offenders in other states:

Since the recession threw their budgets into turmoil, many states have decided to imprison fewer people, largely to save money. Mississippi has reduced the proportion of their sentences that non-violent offenders are required to serve from 85% to 25%. Texas is making greater use of non-custodial penalties. New York has repealed most mandatory minimum terms for drug offences. In all, the number of prisoners in state lock-ups fell by 0.3% in 2009, the first fall since 1972. But the total number of Americans behind bars still rose slightly, because the number of federal prisoners climbed by 3.4%.

A less punitive system could work better, argues Mark Kleiman of the University of California, Los Angeles. Swift and certain penalties deter more than harsh ones. Money spent on prisons cannot be spent on more cost-effective methods of crime-prevention, such as better policing, drug treatment or probation.

About the Author

Amy K. Guerra is a criminal defense attorney in Fresno, CA. In addition to her career in criminal defense, she's worked as a freelance writer and within the non-profit sector. She continues to be active in the community and enjoys writing about issues in criminal law relative to their community impact.